Liberals Are People of the Gun Too

Ed “Let’s Get to Work” Schultz owns a gun. Ed “The Republicans are Ignorant Sluts” Schultz owns a gun. And because Ed “The Liberal’s Liberal” Schultz owns a gun, it’s OK for everyone! John “More Guns Less Crime” Lott reckons Schultz’s pro-gun polemic on his radio show is more than mere hypocrisy. The “die-hard liberal . . . switches his position on gun control,” Lott proclaims. Uh, I don’t think so. Schultz’ logic in defense of his [and your] right to armed self-defense is, shall we say, tortuous. Why, for example, does he have a concealed carry permit if he thinks he doesn’t need it? Make the jump for the full FUD . . .

I guess I’m going to give some audio that might be a little bit tough for liberals. But as a gun owner myself, I pose the question to our audience — why should there be restriction on people who are law-abiding citizens that don’t have mental health issues? That are law-abiding citizens? That pay their taxes? That do everything they’re supposed to do? But then every time there’s a mass shooting we’re going to have a conversation about what I can own in this country. This is freedom, isn’t it?

I’m going to infuriate some of you, I don’t mean to, I’m pushing the conversation that, it’s almost as if we don’t dive into the conversation the way we should. And what is at the crux of all of this is freedom! You can go out and purchase a firearm! And there are groups out there that want to limit that and the types that you own because some crazy guy went in and shot up a workplace!

Now, from a gun owner’s perspective, do you think that’s fair? Gun owners are going to say no. And they’re going to have their advocates who are going to take it beyond common sense and come up with statements that the only thing that can protect a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun, against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. No, I don’t adhere to that. If I did, I’d own firearms that would be concealed. If I really believed that in my heart, I would have, I’d be packing. And I’d have a permit that lets me pack. But I don’t! . . .

Liberals, individually, not en mass, MAY be gun owners. If they were in FACT People of the Gun they would understand the limitations on government the Founders attempted, with verying degrees of success, to write into the Constitution, and that liberalism, the modern manifestation of Progressivism, is the very ANTITHESIS of what the founders of this country intended when the wrote and ratified that document and the Bill of Rights.

I think, perhaps, it is time for Robert Farago or Nick or someone to write a precise definition of what exactly is defined by the term “People of the Gun”, because I suspect it does not mean what Liberal gun owners think it means. There is more to this than just liking guns and wanting to own [some]. Lest we forget, the Nazis were “People of the Gun” too, big time. A Fascist who votes pro gun, for whatever political justification, is still NOT my friend.

I think that you’re trying to redefine “people of the gun” here to be something along the lines of “those I like” or “those I agree with on political issues”, or at least “generally libertarian”. I don’t see how any of that follows from the term. If your objection with the guy is that he’s not a libertarian or not a strict constitutionalist, then that’s fine, but what does it have to do with gun politics in general?

FWIW, if you talk about strict adherence to the US Constitution, it would follow that no other country in the world can have “people of the gun”…

The thematic problem why Liberals cannot safeguard the RKBA is because they prioritize society over the individual.

Why mandate universal healthcare? Because the collective health is more important then individual liberty.So it goes for “fair taxation”, “Car-less mass transit” and other collectivist goals.When the government is tasked with the mandate to feed, clothe, and sustain it’s population the concept of armed self defense ceases to have meaning.

What are you defending, exactly?Your life is inconsequential .Why should you own a means to hurt another when your life is meaningless and all you own belongs to The Borg Collective?

This is why the leaders of the Democratic Party despise firearm ownership.It is also why we cannot live as one, liberal and conservative , at the gun range.

A GOP led autocracy , to be fair ,is just as evil as a Democratic Socialist Paradise when taken to it’s end.Yet the Republican power base rests on safeguarding the RKBA. The Democrats ,by contrast, adopt civil disarmament as a party pillar.

And you’re surrounded by dozens of criminal psychopaths and sociopaths. No, prison is not a safe place at all.
There isn’t anywhere that is completely safe. Better to be free, and have the means to protect yourself.

The best argument I can think of against “gun control” is to take a look at any prison, and not just in this country. You are in a totally gun-free zone (except for the guards) and yet you are under constant threat of assault, extortion, murder, rape, and any number of other violent crimes. Is it any wonder prisoners do whatever they can to come up with some sort of weapon to protect themselves when they KNOW the guards cannot or will not arrive in time to save them, in a closed and constantly monitored society that everyone knows is teaming with criminal sociopaths?

We may be able to prevent inmates from getting firearms inside a prison, but being an inmate does NOT extinguish your natural and civil right to self defense, it only puts the Constitutionally protected part of it on hold. If gun control could actually reduce crime being inside a prison would be the safest place in the world, but it’s not.

I’m tired of hearing this BS about the “GOP autocracy.” That is a fiction created by both Libertarians looking to be someone and Democrats who are a bunch of Fascists. The Democrats are the autocrats. What do you think collectivism is. Their egalitarianism a ruse. There are only two kinds of government. one which is organized around representative government and free markets and one run by ruling elite. There is no choice between the current political parties. You either go with Republicans and freedom or Democrats one Party Fascist state. Make a choice.

So please explain how republicans limit your freedom if you are minority, woman, or poor person? I see the argument if you are gay and wish to marry, or a woman who wishes to have an abortion (although these issues are more complex than most of us like to admit and these ‘freedoms’ are not as clearly defined as those in the bill of rights), but fail to see how republicans limit the freedoms of the other aforementioned classes?

“Sure, unless you happen to be a woman, a homosexual, a minority or poor.”

Republicansim, and Libertarianism, is about smaller, limited government and less taxes, it is not about exclusion or bigotry. (I’m not entirely sure the GOP still understands this small government part, which is why the Tea Party is gaining strength.) If you actually LOOK at history you will see the greatest bigots are ALWAYS on the political left. KKK anyone? Nazis anyone? (Don’t try the right-wing Nazi argument, they were National SOCIALISTS, as far from right-wing as you can get.) Marxist-Leninists anyone? The Nazis put their young women in breeding farms to create more cannon fodder and the Japanese kidnapped Korean women and shipped them to army outposts as “comfort women”. No Republicans in those groups. It was the sainted FDR who illegally interned Japanese Americans during WW II.

You have obviously never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans. I don’t know the meaning of the name itself, but it is a major national group of homosexual Republicans. Martin Luther King was a registered Republican and a gun owner. Colion Noir is a Republican, as is Clarence Thomas and Condolisa Rice. How many “ethnic minorities” work in high positions in the Obama regime?

While many people of so-called “ethnic minorities” have been fooled by Liberal demagoguery into believing the Democrats are looking out for their interests (by subverting the very meaning of the Constitution that founded this country) the Republican party would dearly LOVE to have them see the light and join the conservatives. There is certainly NO plank in the Republican or conservative political platform preventing party membership by “minorities”. And as for the poor, they are poor because for almost 40 years the Democrats have been fighting their “War on Poverty” at the cost of many Trillions of dollars and the only people who are no longer poor are the political bedfellows sucking on that government tit who definitely do not have any interest in ensuring that there are fewer poor people next year when the government largess is distributed to their organizations. Republican capitalists, it must be understood, would like nothing better than for everyone to have more money and go out and buy the stuff they make and/or sell. Where is the incentive to keep people poor or to exclude them from the party?

I hope you like the flavor of the Kool Aid they are serving you, but I should warn you that it is probably laced with something toxic that is causing your logic function to shrivel and die.

“(I’m not entirely sure the GOP still understands this small government part, which is why the Tea Party is gaining strength.)”

It really hasn’t been for over a year now. The problem is that the TEA Party’s mostly made up of old people, whose logic is basically “No socialism! But don’t you dare touch my Medicare and Social Security!”

Old people are also typically more socially-conservative, so all the TEA Party is at this point is GOP Hard 2: GOP Harder.

“For women” means support for government paid birth control and abortion so Democrats like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy can get laid without risk.

“For minorities” means that African Americans are kept in their place producing welfare clients and thugs to control the streets; Latinos are there to mow their lawns, take care of their kids and serve up their burgers; Asians are there as a source of other peoples’ money.

“For the poor” means trading votes for a welfare check to make sure that they stay poor.

And I have no idea about what “for gay” means since Progressives are ok with Muslims murdering them.

Bullshit. For all the talk, their track record shows that GOP has always consistently been the big government party. They may tax less, but they spend the same (usually more, actually) than Democrats, and they tend to spend it on more wasteful matters, too (such as numerous foreign wars with absolutely no benefit to US).

Heck, Patriot Act alone is sufficient evidence that Republicans are not for “small government”. If you’re still not convinced, there’s also that whole War on Drugs business.

It’s because of people like Paul and Cruz that the word “Republican” has become so confusing.

John McCain and Lindsay Graham are Republicans. So are Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Yet they stand for such different principles.

But when someone says “Republican” these days, I (and most people, IMHO) tend to think of the Bush and McCain types. Warmongers. Imperialists. Etc. People like Rand Paul are libertarians who wear Republican name tags because the MSM has got all the LoFo voters hypnotizied: “There are only two political parties…. No other parties are viable…. You are getting very sleepy…. Have some Kool Aid….”

If Cruz is a libertarian playing the part of a republican, then McCain is a democrat with a red name tag.

The republican party keeps losing because it keeps nominating RINOs. McCain, Romney, they are both large government authoritarians who only differ from the democrats on social issues. If the republican party wants to keep losing then they will nominate someone like McConnell, or god forbid, Christie.

If the republican party wants to win in 2016 then it will be very simple. For president, nominate one of the more libertarian leaning senators, like Cruz or Paul. I’d prefer Cruz, but that’s just me. That will get you all of the libertarian vote, a good chunk of the independent vote, and the vast majority of the republican vote. And we will be running against Hillary. So for VP, nominate a traditional republican woman who has a background in healthcare. That should get more of the traditional republican vote, more of the female vote, and give us a strong platform to run against Obamacare. In 2014 republicans across the US won by running against Obamacare, and in 2016 it will be just as large of a mess, and we will be just as successful running against it.

For all pratical purposes Libertarians have become a false flag operation for the Democrats. They will ensure that the Democrats will have control of both Houses of Congress in 2015. Say hello to the one party socialist state.

Cruz and company have confused strategy with tactics. The shutdown is just a tactical move that has played into Obama’s hands. A rational strategy would have been to let O-care crash and burn, which it is doing all on its own and reap the benefits in 2014. The smart tactic to implement this strategy was to make sure that all federal employees, civilian, military and retirees, be put on the system. the Democrats would have refused to this and voila, THE talking point for 2014.

>> For all pratical purposes Libertarians have become a false flag operation for the Democrats. They will ensure that the Democrats will have control of both Houses of Congress in 2015.

The reason why Dems will have control of both Houses in 2015 is because Republicans have screwed up big time by confusing the attitude of a tiny (but vocal) minority of fringe right suppoters with that of their power base, and adopted the spoiled child temper tantrum strategy in Congress for the last several years.

Personally, as a liberal, I watch the unfolding events with glee, and I really, really wish that Cruz would become the leader of GOP. This guy is already hurting the party more than anyone outside could ever do; with him and his in leadership positions, it would make GOP into such a trainwreck that it might actually sink the party for good and reboot the system (hopefully with libertarians taking over the right side of the spectrum).

The last thing I was expecting to see was that fat tub of shit Schultz. Never knew he owned a gun. Makes no difference, he supports and votes for the party that would disarm us all. The fact he owns a firearm is irrelevant.

He is like a lot of gun owning fools on the left that have not thought the following through: If “sensible” “compromise” background loophole and national registry legislation were to have passed:
a) which of the big in the news spree killing should it have prevented? (none)
b) what is the next step when such legislation fails to accomplish anything, and now that gun owners are blamed and the focus?

—“And they’re going to have their advocates who are going to take it beyond common sense and come up with statements that the only thing that can protect a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun, against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”—

So Schultz opposes vaccines too? Does he think people who advocate vaccines “go beyond common sense”? Vaccine advocates rightly say vaccines work very well and stop most disease they target. They don’t claim they stop all disease and they are not the “only” way to prevent them.

Schultz sets a straw man with “only”. Gun rights advocates to not say “the only way” is with “a good guy with a gun.” They say, and the science and data completely back this up, that very frequently a good guy with a gun do stop bad guys with guns.

Mr. Obama’s CDC report says his happens 500,000 to 3 million times per year.

How is noting that glaring FACT “beyond common sense” in Schultz’s pea brain?

The problem comes down to basic mindset: LiberalProgressiveSelfRightousPiousKnowItAlls think they know best, and therefore have the right to say who can have what, and how. If they don’t personally feel they NEED it, NO ONE should be allowed to have it. Think of vegetarians: Do you know of any meat eater who would tell a vegetarian they MUST eat meat? Environmentalists: know any oilfield worker who would DEMAND everyone own an SUV? Different facets of the same mentality.

The very notion that one can hold the 2A to mean what it means and also vote for anyone with a D associated with their name suggests either that one is a masochist, devoted to suffering as much as possible, or else deluded to such a degree that within their own fantasy world it’s possible to reconcile progressivism and liberty. I suppose a third possible option is that one is so remarkably stupid as to have misunderstood the nature of the Democrat party to such a degree as to have overlooked how restriction of essential liberties (to included the RKBA) is an actual and openly admitted plank in the party’s platform.

So, to be clear, if you consider yourself a POTG and also a Democrat, you’re either lying, stupid or crazy. There really is no forth option.

The other obvious option that you’re missing is recognizing that there are other rights and freedoms equally deserving of protection, and that Ds happen to be slightly better about those than Rs – just enough to outweigh the general anti-2A attitude of the party in terms of the overall balance of rights and freedoms.

While I’m not a liberal, I do lean Libertarian. I can find common ground with liberals on some issues, but gun rights trump them all. If a politician won’t trust me to be armed, I don’t trust them to be in office.

Schultz has always been a gun owner, and he’s got a nice day job. So while I feel off-air he probably likes his guns, he’s going to bend somewhat to those that sign his paycheck. He was an avid hunter until they told him to tone that down. Dishonest? Hell yes, but that’s showbiz.

He has in the past “been against the awb before he was for it before he was against it.”

As far as I know , he used to be a conservative.

Talk radio and talking heads. Meh. On both sides. These shows are meant for people to yell “Yeah that’s right!” at the tv or radio to people and opinions they already agree with. He actually went out on a limb for not Declaring the Gun as Evil. Scandal!

To my good friend int19h,members of your party, not just Feinstein, have expressed the desire for an outright ban. Look it up. The only reason it is not in their platform is because it would be political suicide. And to answer your other post tough boy, no I don’t believe he government should regulate sexual activity between consenting adults. You brought sodomy into this thread on 2 different occasions not me. Implying that I am perhaps gay was a nice touch that tough boys like you can get away with from the safety of your laptop.

Speaking of liberal turds. I got a flyer from the McAuliffe campaign claiming that Cuccinelli’s “extremism in opposing sensible guns safety laws is putting guns in the wrong hands.” The dirty New Jersey carpetbagger doesn’t even know that Virginia doesn’t have a crime problem. We stand to start on the road to losing our gun rights because McAuliffe has been successful in misrepresenting several bills introduced by Cuccinelli when he was a state senator. If you think Cuccinelli has been campaigning on social issues then you are a victim of McAuliffe disinformation. By the way McAuliffe owns guns. I have actually seen him at the LGS buying them. He is still a $hit

It is sad to see Virginia go the way of Colorado, but this is what happens when people see the government as mommy and daddy. Dems win when people value their services over their freedoms and responsibilities.

“Sodomy” itself is a bigoted term with a very vague meaning. In this case, it includes e.g. oral sex. I’m not sure how many conservatives are not getting any of that, but as a liberal I get my fair share and enjoy it quite a lot. But, no, I am heterosexual, in case you wondered. I’m sorry if you had any hopes.

Regardless of the personal angle, are you one of those people who believe that government should regulate private and consensual sexual lives of citizens? If you are, and you claim to be “small government”, then you’re an extreme hypocrite, and a perfect illustration of the oft-quoted description of Republicans as the party of “government small enough to fit into your bedroom”.

I was not the one who brought sodomy into this thread; the awkward attempt to defend Cuccinelli as anything other than a bigot did. And in the other thread, it was the attempt to deny the fact that Republican party is a de facto social conservative bigot party.

Ah yes the party of bigots. Boy you really got me there. As much as I would love to stay and chat with a leftist troll my son has soccer practice. By the way tough boy, don’t get your hopes up on the party of baby-killers, sorry I meant dems, taking the house. With the redistricting of 2010 and the fact it is an off-year election it is going to be tough. I am surprised your pals at the democratic underground did not mention that.

The slaves comment was and is a desperate move. It is people like him and his party who tried to keep guns out of the hands of black Americans. That is a historical fact. It is also a fact that a well armed society is not only a polite society but a safer one. Just look at the numbers of crims before and after people are allowed to own guns in cities like Chicago. Based on his logic, should we shut down all so called “news” media, and arrest them all based on the fact that the people who wrote the 1st amendment owned slaves?

I’m a liberal gun owner too, and as proud of the first part as the second. For me, it is quite simple: I am in favor of increasing human freedom, whether it be religious, marital, medical, pharmacological, etc. I think of myself as a member of the libertarian (small ‘l’) wing of the Democrat Party. I believe that government exists only to do the things we can’t do for ourselves. Where I disagree with many conservatives is the question of when is government action necessary.

While I disagree with many of my fellow people of the gun on the right on many issues (ObamaCare, abortion rights, gay marriage, and likely others), and this sometimes leads to ‘vociferous debate’, I actually feel a bit more welcomed in these circles of mutual interest than with my fellow liberals.

To put it another way, I find it unlikely that I will be banned for life for admitting supporting ObamaCare or saying that anti-choice is pro-slavery, whereas I’ve been banned from Daily Kos for life for admitting supporting the Colorado Recalls.

The things you say in your post make amazingly little sense (‘I support increasing human (medical) freedom…[and] ObamaCare’; “anti-choice is pro-slavery”; stating that there is a libertarian wing of the Democrat Party). Having said that, I’m glad you’re here. I hope that some sense will rub off on you, and that eventually you will come to have some of your own.

In the meantime, do yourself a favor and AT LEAST use your progressive comradeship to help bring other Dems/Libs/Statists to experience shooting. Going to a range is the only way to win converts to the cause. I’ve had mild success with this with Libs, but I think they refused to even be open to the possibility because they already knew they disagreed with my politics. You have a great opportunity for practical evangelism…PLEASE use it.

Social security – I am volunteered by my parents at virtual gunpoint. I cannot opt out of it.
Minimum wage – I cannot choose to work for less in order to win work and gain skills and training.
Welfare – I am kept from climbing the social ladder because I cannot jump the gap, created by gov. dependency, to financial self-support.

It goes on and on. A subset of our population believe that we are incapable of making our own decisions, or directing our own lives. They use the government to inflict and enforce their enlightened choices onto us. “They” are called Liberals.

Sorry, but either “shall not be infringed” means something, or it doesn’t. Sort of like the 1st Amendment. Everyone has the right to spew garbage or none of us do. Being smart, rational or agreeable has nothing to do with either of those rights.

Man, he was doing so well until that final paragraph. If only he could just take that last logical leap, that the victims of these mass shootings are defenseless victims because the choice not to be has been stripped from them. Victimhood is the lynchpin of the progressive movement. If you can communicate that one little point to an antigunner, that opens the door to all kinds of revelations they never considered about responsibility and the role of government.

If you don’t believe guns stop bad people then why own them at all? Not carrying one concealed just means you don’t think you will need it…

Owning a gun and say you don’t believe they can be use to stop bad people is like saying you take blood pressure meds, but you don’t believe they work at leoonf blood pressure, then why are you wasting your time and money?

Liberals are people who are willing to entertain new ideas or ways of thinking.

Unfortunately, when one takes personal responsibility for what goes on inside one’s head rather than ceding control to one’s pastor or Rush Limbaugh, the results have far-reaching and someties problematic implications.

A liberal is less likely to say “nuclear science isn’t in the Bible, but since it’s useful I’ll accept it” but not give Darwin the same break, for instance. We’re less likely to break out in hives at new information, new ideas or new ways of living. We’re not “it was good enough for my father and me, so it’s good enough for you” types.

We do not worship the Almighty Status Quo, so are more liely to tweak, tune and repair rather than simply muddle through.

Progressivism and liberalism carved this country from a world which had never before seen its like, f’rinstance. Progressivism fought slavery and limited suffrage.

Unfortunately, among liberals is a great place for Statists to hide, because there are many similarities — the belief that the system should be open to change being chief among them.

And we have our own “ditto headdedness,” many of us surrendering to the will of the herd because the rest of the herd is “too big to be wrong.”

I’ve as little respect for deniers of individual freedom from the left as from the right. One side tells me to be a good little cog in the societal machine and give up personal responsibility, while the other brands me unAmerican because I fought tooth and nail against the Patriot Act, free speech zones and the Iraq war.

Gun-deniers and climate deniers share the same lack of individual curiosity, the willingness to do the math, but about differing things; under the surface, they’re bookends.

I own guns, and will use them to defend te rights, life and property of myself and others. I also believe that the New Deal was needed, so I’m a stinkin’ liberal. I also believe that Hoover was right when he warned that certain aspects could lead to statism.

I see consertivatives decry taes, but they still use roads built at public expense and machinery whose principles of operation were discovered in government labs.

Jefferson said “God forbid we should be 20 years without a revolution.” That enshrines change. He just figured and hoped that it’d be for the better.

We are in a flat spin, with no controls and the increasing G forces threatening not only our consciousness but the very structures on which we depend. What I’d give for a JATO bottle or two.

“Liberals are people who are willing to entertain new ideas or ways of thinking.” – Russ Bixby

That sentence is filled with as much untruth as any other single thought I’ve ever read. Liberals are just as close-minded, unintelligent, self-centered, and yes “anti-science” (gasp!!) as any other political group.

You almost had a point when you said that Statists hide behind Liberalism, but that was as close as you ever came. And then you proceeded to conflate Conservatism (and some Libertarianism) with the image of a old, malevolent grump who wants nothing more than to see things NOT change. Weak. Your posts seem more intelligent than to make such an asinine argument.

You and that Baum fellow are not very convincing that as “liberal gun owners” you support gun rights.

Schultz, Bloomberg, & Feinstein are liberal gun owners. They believe in “guns for me but not for thee” and are forthright about their specialness which empowers them in having guns while saying to the rest of us, “No, citizen, you can’t have those things. You must give them to the state.”

They are far more credible, in my opinion. So you take a cafeteria approach to which elements of the liberal platform you support more than others? Fine. Still, not very convincing.

Yes, something so profound must have gone over my head. What I would really like is for you, Swarf, A-Rod and others to just admit that while you may own guns, when push comes to shove, you value an activist federal government over one that is limited, and will vote for politicians who share your vision.

I’m so sick and tired of the “Founders owned slaves, therefore the Constitution is a questionable document”, meme.

If mankind is incapable of espousing a higher ideal that he lives at the moment he does so, then there really is no point to all this and we should all just jump off a cliff. Seriously, its the logic of nihilism to assume that people are only as good as their worst thought or action. Anyone who follows this is either claiming to be better than anyone who may have preceded them, or is admitting that they are themselves reprobate SOBs.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Being a “gun owner” makes you a gun supporter or expert in the same way owning a dress makes you a woman. Just because you have some physical object (or report to have one) doesn’t mean you understand the lifestyle, challenges, and responsibilities. Being a “gun owner” doesn’t mean anything, it’s just their half-assed attempt to seem balanced, like that gives them credibility and makes them an expert on all related topics.